Producing Local Color: A Study of Networks and
Resource Mobilization in Three Local Chicago
Communities
This is a working paper created for a Cultural Policy Center Workshop, March 2, 2004.
It is presented as a work-in-progress for public input, comment and criticism. This paper
is drawn from a larger, 200+ page comprehensive look at art production in these
communities.
By Diane Grams
Associate Director
Cultural Policy Center at The University of Chicago
1155 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637
Phone 773-834-5995
Fax 773-702-0926
Email: [email protected]
Producing Local Color: A Study of Networks and
Resource Mobilization in Three Local Chicago
Communities
Abstract
This study of networks and resource mobilization in three localities shows how
professionals and local residents involved in art production accessed resources through
social circuits to create markers of the racial, ethnic and class dimensions of their
communities. By tracing art production circuits through connections of participants in
three distinct urban communities, I saw how mutual concerns for the locality brought
circuit participants together and sustained art production activity. I compared art
production in three Chicago communities with distinct racial and ethnic composition: one
predominantly Black/African American (Bronzeville), one predominantly
White/Hispanic/ Mexican American (Pilsen) and one diverse (Rogers Park). Mutual
concern was more prominent in circuit connections than trust or reciprocal agreements.
Data collected from interviews with 80 people as well as participant observation at their
events showed significantly more arts activity within an area than is evident through
public listings. Variation among the three localities resulted from the interplay of
competing concerns including collective identity, artistic autonomy, property ownership,
local sovereignty, youth education and local problem solving. Rather than reproducing
historic inequalities by misrecognizing a dominant culture as the legitimate culture of the
community (Bourdieu 1984), participants produced symbolic meanings that contested
historic subordinate statuses by representing community history, its people and its
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 1
potential vitality to itself and outsiders. This “local color” became another resource to be
exploited by individuals and organizations.
Networks of Producers
In Art Worlds (1982), Howard Becker provided a definitive exploration of art
production as an occupational field in which participants were linked in network
relationships. In Becker’s world, participants include all those people involved in the
occupational world of art production including artists, curators, actors, photographers,
and gallery owners. We understood what they produced by their role in the field as
categories of work. By viewing the basic social arrangement as a network, Becker
showed creation and distribution of an artwork as the work of a collectivity of producers,
each integral to a process leading to the creation of something understood by circuit
participants to be “art.”
This view throws a broad net including everyone whose
participation in the occupation as consequential to the existence of an artwork. For
example, he included museum guards or museum janitors among the producers of what
was understood to be “art.” Becker provided a useful perspective because he located or
localized the knowledge and material resources necessary to produce art to the network
of participants involved in the activity. In short, what I will do here, is shift the frame of
art production from a “field” (Bourdieu 1984) or “occupation” (Becker 1982) to a
“locality” in which I explore what was produced when participants, resources, and
aesthetics guiding art production were anchored in a local community. I studied a
predominantly African-American (Bronzeville), a predominantly Mexican-American
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 2
(Pilsen) and a diverse local community (Rogers Park). In doing so, I looked outside of
categories typical of occupational relationships that represent the dominant cultural
paradigm and focused on localized network relationships to see who was involved, what
resources were used and what was produced.
What is a Network?
Becker’s use of the term “network” made it evident that art production is not the
same type of production as found in an automobile production plant, nor is it like a
textbook flow chart of institutional order within a museum; nor is it the product of a
logical progression of time as presented by art history. So if not these, what is a
network? Becker has provided at least two images of what networks are and how they
operate. On the one hand, he used the term to describe how people are linked through
shared knowledge. He said an art world is “the network of people whose cooperative
activity organized via their joint knowledge of conventional means of doing things,
produced the kind of art works that the art world is noted for” (1982:x). In art worlds
constructed by networks, participants may or may not know each other. They are not
necessarily in the same locality, city, region or nation; they just know how to do things in
the same way. In the second image provided by Becker, networks accomplished
instrumental purposes, such as providing access to resources. These networks are built
through interpersonal “connections.” According to Becker:
[In addition to ability] successful free-lancers also need a network of
connections, so that a large number of people who might need their services have
them in mind, and in their telephone book, to be called when the occasion
arises…. A network of connections consists of a number of people who know
you and your work well enough to trust the well-being of some portion of their
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 3
project to you. The key element of the network is trust…Through interlocking
trust and recommendations, workers develop stable networks which furnish them
with more or less steady work (1982:86-87).
In this image, network participants must at least know of each other. There are specific
connections between people. There is something accomplished through the network.
There is an element of trust involved in the network. These two images of networks are
potentially confusing because they lead to contradictory definitions of a network, which
in turn lead to divergent methods of study and different academic disciplines.
The study of culture as symbolic networks is an approach typical of cultural
studies, anthropology and sociology of culture. It focuses on how shared practices,
shared knowledge, and shared ways of doing things place individuals in the same group
or classification. A researcher could identify members and classify them in the same
group based how they are part of or reproduce the same social or cultural practices.
Members could identify others of the same group through recognizing sets of practices.
Three studies of class-based cultural practices illustrate such symbolic networks:
Rosenzweig’s (1983) study of the emergence of the saloon as the center of working-class
men’s social life; Radway’s (1984) study of working class women who read romance
novels to escape and resist their ascribed roles; and Bourdieu’s (1984) study of status and
mobility among middle and upper class museum goers. Each of these studies show how
symbolic practices create aspects of an art world, a social world, and a worldview while
expressing group identity.
The study of culture through networks of instrumental activities links Becker to
network analysts working in business schools, in the sociology of organizations and in
technology, who have studied the functions and purposes of networks, say, for example,
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 4
job seekers’ networks (Granovetter 1973), the network form of management in
technology businesses (Burnes and Stalker 1961), networks of organizations within a
discipline or with a shared purpose (Galaskiewicz and Bielefeld 1998), and network
relationships among businesses (Podolny and Page 1998). Such studies show how
network structures can be functional and effective where hierarchically designed rational
organizations or market competition fails. For example, researchers studying business
innovation (Burns and Stalker 1961) and cultural trends (Fine and Kleinman 1979) have
shown how network structures are the most effective operation in changing unstable
conditions or where rapid transmission of information is necessary for problem solving
and creativity. Among other benefits, firms participating in network relationships learn
new skills, acquire new knowledge, improve economic performance and manage resource
dependencies (Podolny and Page [1998]2003:2).
In their review of the “network form of organization” Podolny and Page define a
network:
[From] a structural perspective, every form of organization is a network, and market and
hierarchy are simply two manifestations of the broader type. However, when considered
as a form of governance, the network form can be distinctly characterized. We define a
network form of organization as any collection of actors (N[ greater or equal]2) that
pursue repeated, enduring exchange relations with one another and, at the same time, lack
a legitimate organizational authority to arbitrate and resolve disputes that may arise
during the exchange. (Podolny and Page [1998]2003:2)
This is useful because it highlights that network relationships are more than chance
meetings; they are repeated and enduring relationships. Rather than relying on authority
relations, typical of hierarchical organizations or competition, typical of markets,
networks rely on something else to maintain the relationship. What is this something
else? As Becker highlighted, some network researchers have focused the governing
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 5
principal on trust (Powell 1990, Schuler 1996), others have focused on an act of
reciprocity, that is, the give and take involved in an exchange (Powell 1990, Putnam
2000), still others have focused on mutual benefits rather than individual gain (Burnes
and Stalker 1961, Putnam 2000).
Applying this approach to the study of art production, Gilmore (1993) and Giuffre
(1998) both showed how reliance on network relationships is functional because it
provides stability in an unstable work environment and provides access to opportunities
necessary for success. To maintain stability, Gilmore showed how dancers engaged a
large pool of potential collaborators by becoming “well connected:”
[being well connected means]…networked to a variety of interpersonal
sources transmitting information about potential collaborators. Searchers
(or attractors) who successfully use informal channels to find potential
collaborators tend to be highly socially active, both in terms of initiating
contacts with other social world participants and in terms of receiving
contacts (Gilmore 1993:282).
Access to information through such informal networks was strategically necessary for
both dance organizations and independent dancers because neither the freelance artist nor
the formal arts organization had access to the financial resources to call into play the type
of control and sanctions operating in traditional labor markets. Similarly, Guiffre (1999)
found that careers of prominent photographers where enabled by broad weak ties and
structural holes rather than tight cliques that limited access to opportunities. Network
relationships make sense to art producers because they provide access to opportunities
and stability in an occupational field where the majority of workers have irregular and
temporary employment, or produce art as a second, and often unpaid career. Rather than
being a diffuse or disorganized world, an emerging market or an informal organization –
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 6
all lesser forms of a more developed system – these studies led me to consider if and how
network relationships are effective to produce art and how they might provide the type of
benefits to local communities as those found in occupational and business relationships.
Circuits in a Network
I use the concept of a “circuit” to describe a subset of social relationships found in
local communities that produce art oriented toward specific local purposes. The concept
of “a circuit” comes from the in vivo slang reference by arts producers to refer to
location-specific patterns of work relationships. Occupational circuits of art production
might include “the club circuit,” “the nightclub circuit” or with visual artists “the gallery
circuit,” “the museum circuit.” Local circuits might link to larger networks involving
institutions, organizations, occupations or political relations within and beyond a locality.
Circuit structures cross boundaries of traditional organizational structures.
Furthermore, they cross boundaries of the traditional “public” and “private” dichotomies.
However, this study shows subtle interrelation between what is public and what is
private; how public art monuments represent the private concerns of local residents; how
private collections are amassed to represent the quality and diversity of a community of
art producers; and how interpersonal circuits of arts producers establish local community
identities that are in turn exploited by private and public entities. Relationships among
circuit participants were not fixed relationships, but rather flexible and shifting
relationships. The flexibility of circuit relationships enabled participants to establish new
links in a circuit or to a larger network as it suited a need or interest.
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 7
Methods
To study how local art production circuits might be different than occupational
networks, I developed a snowball sample for three localities from communities that were
not traditional players in the occupational world of art production. They were typically
not included in the traditional art markets, but there was visible evidence of art
production in these localities.
The three communities were within the corporate boundaries of Chicago. They
were each similar in their traditional status as subordinate to a dominant culture, and in
their active resistance to this ascribed status. The three Chicago communities involved in
this study had distinct racial and ethnic composition. Bronzeville was predominantly
non-Hispanic Black1/African American (86%), Pilsen was predominantly Hispanic/White
(89%) of Mexican American ethnicity and Rogers Park was diverse, having nearly equal
thirds of non-Hispanic Black (30%), non-Hispanic White (32%), Hispanic (28%), with
(6%) Asian/Pacific Islander and (4%) of remaining races (see Appendix A, Table 1:
Community Composition by Race). As these communities existed within the larger
context of Chicago, a city whose population was divided nearly in thirds between nonHispanic Black (36%), non-Hispanic White (31%), and Hispanic (26%), the relative
balance of racial proportions was part of the formula that fueled resistance to subordinate
status.
The geographic locations of these communities were important to understanding
1
Following contemporary practices created by African American intellectuals and writers, I capitalize
“Black” and “White” when they are used as nouns to describe a group similar to “African American,
“Caucasian” or “Hispanic.”
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 8
their local contexts.
Bronzeville and Pilsen existed in close proximity to the “loop,”
Chicago’s center city, while Rogers Park is Chicago’s furthest northern community area
(See Appendix B, Map 1: Chicago showing locations of Bronzeville, Pilsen and Rogers
Park). Bronzeville and Pilsen both had constructed and natural geographic boundaries
(highways, trains, Chicago River, Lake Michigan, and three universities), that while
permeable, outlined their areas. The boundaries of Rogers Park were not as apparent
from such geographic delineation as they were defined by distance from the city center.
Upon entering Bronzeville or Pilsen, difference was evident both in the crossing of these
geographic barriers and by the predominance of distinct racial/ ethnic groups: Black
people in Bronzeville and evidence of Hispanic people by Spanish language and Mexican
iconography in signage and murals in Pilsen. Difference in Rogers Park was evident by
the lack of a predominant race or ethnicity. The diversity of the local community
included every racial and ethnic background, including an array of relatively new
immigrant groups. Also evident was diversity of sexual orientations.
Household income in each of these communities provided a third aspect to the
local context. While the median HH income in each of these communities was slightly
below the Chicago median household income, the income range presented a different
picture (See Appendix A, Table 2: Comparison of Income Range by Community). The
median household income levels (2000 U.S. Census) ranged from $24,835 in
Bronzeville, to $27,763 in Pilsen to $33, 957 in Rogers Park. Each of these local areas
was below the average median household income for Chicago ($38,625), Illinois
($46,435) and the national median household income ($42,148). Bronzeville had a
substantially higher percentage of its residents living in extreme poverty (31%) than
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 9
either Pilsen or Rogers Park (both have 14%) and also had a higher number of wealthy. It
had an estimated 1600 (2%) with household incomes over $200,000 compared to an
estimated 198 (0.45%) in Pilsen and an estimated 634 (1%) in Rogers Park. The
household incomes in both Pilsen and Rogers Park peaked between $20,000 and $39,000
providing what appeared to be a traditional “normal” curve. These figures, representing a
working class or emerging middle class community, provide clues to values and therefore
the kinds of art production that might predominate within these localities. However,
Bronzeville’s income curve had two peaks – the first and highest with 31% of its people
living in extreme poverty and the second smaller peak with 19% of its residents living in
the $20,000-$40,000 range. Its relatively substantial numbers of wealthy people also
provided clues to the types of values and types of art production one might find.
I developed a snowball sample for each locality by visiting a site that hosted
events involving local artists. In Bronzeville this site was the South Side Community Art
Center; in Pilsen the Pros Arts Studio; and in Rogers Park, the Insight Arts. As these
organizations were small having 2 to 5 employees, I began by interviewing key
participants at the site. Use of these sites as starting points to identify participants in local
circuits led to identification of public and private circuits of activities. I expanded the
scope of my research following referrals by circuit participants at each of these locations.
In seeking referrals, I asked who else is involved in the circuit and how informants
distinguished their own work from others in the locality. These inquiries allowed me to
identify types of people involved in the circuit and the range of circuits involved within a
locality. These referrals constructed the conceptual framework for each circuit by linking
me first with participants who shared particular interests or practices in arts production,
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 10
and second by distinguishing their work from other circuits both within and outside their
locality.
I collected data over two years through both semi-structured interviews obtained
by informed consent of 80 people, as well as participant observation of their art activities
and events including festivals, parades, exhibits, art fairs, performances, open studio
events, fundraising benefits, classes and private social gatherings. All of the interviews
were conducted in person and ranged from _ hour to 3 hours. Each hour of onsite
data–gathering resulted in 3 hours of office work to generate the field notes and an
additional 2 hours for coding. To prepare for an interview or event, I reviewed
information available through public sources.
Comparison of Concentration of Art Activities
Prior to construction my own typology of art production circuits, I made some
comparisons of traditional categories in which arts activities are framed. First, I created
maps of the locations. Through these maps I saw dense concentrations of activity in
Pilsen and Rogers Park but an almost even disbursal of activities throughout Bronzeville
(See Appendix B, Map 2: Disbursal of Arts Activities in Bronzeville, Pilsen and Rogers
Park).
Next, I created tables comparing public art to ongoing activities open to the
public. In 2002, there were 35 sites hosting arts activities in Pilsen (see Appendix A,
Table 3: Comparison of Ongoing Art Activities to Public Art.) In addition, there are 28
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 11
public art sites, which, in Pilsen were either painted or mosaic murals. These sites were
concentrated in just a portion of Pilsen’s 2.8 square mile area. In Rogers Park, in 2002,
there were 32 public sites hosting arts activities in Rogers Park. In addition, there are 4
public art sites, which, in Rogers Park included sculptures, monuments and painted
murals. Unlike the murals in Bronzeville and Pilsen that typically remain intact once
painted, one of these mural sites was a retaining wall in Loyola Park along Lake
Michigan. This was the site of an annual festival, Artists of the Wall, where every year
the wall was repainted by local residents with new images according to a new annual
theme. Rogers Park has the most concentrated number of arts activities and the most
concentrated population in its 1.8 square mile area. In early 2002, there were 22 public
sites hosting arts activities in Bronzeville. In addition, there were 21 sites of public
art/murals created between 1970 and the present. Sites were not concentrated around
existing facilities or potential user/customers. (Detailed maps, Map 3, 4, 5, showing
locations of art activities in Pilsen, Bronzeville and Rogers Park are also found in
Appendix B.) This comparison showed that both Rogers Park and Pilsen higher
concentrations of arts activities and had more public sites hosting arts activities than in
Bronzeville, whereas there were substantially more murals and public art monuments in
both Bronzeville and Pilsen than in Rogers Park.
Third, I segmented the sites into type of business location including for profit,
non-profit, informal, park and university sites, a different picture emerges ( See Appendix
A, Table 4: Comparison of For Profit, Non-Profit, Informal, Public Parks and University
Sites). Rogers Park has the highest numbers of formally organized for profit and nonprofit sites for arts activities, whereas Pilsen has significantly more informal but regularly
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 12
organized arts activities open to the public than either Rogers Park or Bronzeville. This
means that conclusions about the prevalence of arts activities might vary significantly
based on the source of information, the type of organizations studies and the level of
visibility through public listings.
While locations of sites in Bronzeville were not concentrated compared to the
dense concentrations of arts activity seen in Pilsen or Rogers Park, Bronzeville was the
location of the greatest concentration of art activity within any predominantly Black area
in Chicago. Both Rogers Park and Pilsen had more public sites hosting arts activities
than in Bronzeville, whereas there were substantially more murals and public art
monuments in both Bronzeville and Pilsen than in Rogers Park.
A more in depth look at the circuits of producers involved in these activities
showed how in Pilsen and Rogers Park these publicly listed sites were centers of activity
where circuits of arts producers converge, whereas in Bronzeville, active circuits
involved in collecting circuits and in producing public art were not centered around such
organizations. Information from interviews showed significantly more arts activity
within these areas than was evident through public sources. As there were more events
than there were public notices for events, being part of the production circuit responsible
for the event or knowing someone who was part of it, was the best way to find out about
something happening.
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 13
Overview of Circuit Types
Circuit type was the result of the interplay between participants, access to
resources and local concerns. I created a typology of circuit types (See Appendix A,
Table 5: Comparison of Local Art Production Circuits), which included territorial
circuits, collecting circuits, autonomy circuits, gentrification circuits, community building
circuits, and youth services circuits. Below I discuss the predominant circuit types in
each locality, and include a discussion of the local resources, concerns, and the art
produced. It is the difference among the types of circuits that predominate in each
locality that produce “local color”.
These local socio-economic conditions provided varied opportunities and
constraints on resources. Among the resources that varied in these localities were
financial resources – which ranged from large grants from federal, state and municipal
agencies for community and economic development; small grants from arts agencies for
arts programs; and subsidies, purchases and donations from personal income of people
involved in arts production; space resources – which included varied access to live/work
space for making art as well as varied access to public, private and commercial space for
art presentations, exhibition, festivals, parades, murals and facilities; and human
resources – which included varying classes of people to be audiences or participants,
varying levels of involvement by artists, political and community leaders, adults, families
and children. Skill of artists appeared to be a constant among these communities as each
had a range of artists that were both self-taught and highly educated.
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 14
Bronzeville Circuits
In Bronzeville, the primary resource was the growing population of Black, middle
class professionals, establishing or re-establishing residences in this area. The inmigration of middle and upper class Blacks was valued in this community that had
experienced decades of disinvestments and still has 46% of its population living in
poverty. Two circuits of production were active in Bronzeville, Collecting Circuits and
Territorial Circuits. As discussed below, arts producers involved in the two realms in
Bronzeville rarely intersected because of the distinct roles and distinct ends accomplished
by the circuits.
Most indigenous to the local culture are the Collecting Circuits involving artists
and collectors who have built a social life centered on producing and collecting “African
American-made” art. The Collecting Circuit involved middle class participants in a
social world revolving around the selling and buying of art. Collecting was a social
activity creating a cultural community around art objects that represent African American
culture, values and history. Artists produced small-scale objects for private display in
homes of middle class collectors. Artists were both men and women from 20 – 70 years,
many having college degrees in art, art education or graphic design, or BFAs or MFAs
from an arts institute. Collectors were Black men and women, middle-aged, middle class
professionals, many of whom work for various federal, state or local government
agencies, or were administrators or teachers with Chicago Public Schools or area
colleges and universities. They owned hundreds of pieces that were displayed
predominantly in private residences. Exchanges within these social circuits occurred
primarily in private – in collector’s or artist’s homes or studios. While public exhibition
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 15
sites existed in Bronzeville, such as the South Side Community Art Center, a center
established in 1941 by the Works Progress Administration (WPA); the South Shore
Cultural Center; ETA Creative Arts Theater; and, the Bronzeville Military Academy, the
circuits did not emerge from and they did not revolve around these or other nonprofit
organizations or commercial businesses, nor were they dependent upon these sites for
their existence. Exchanges within these social circuits typically occurred between the
collector and the artist rather than being mediated by a gallery owner or artist
representative. These social circuits involved the broader community of Black
Chicagoans beyond the area designated as historic “Bronzeville.”
Second were territorial circuits that created large-scale public monuments and
facilities. Territorial circuits were largely public. Participants included an array of
public officials including alderman, commissioners, bureaucrats, public and private
agency employees, consultants and artists. They created public projects that were
accomplished through strategic access to large cachets of external public funds. The
territorial markers staked out local wards. These markers created the name and the
historical narrative linking the area to historic “Bronzeville,” the place described by Poet
Gwendolyn Brooks where a racially segregated but economically diverse Black
community was once contained on Chicago’s south side.
By placing “Blackness” as a
central theme into public discourse in the form of permanent public art objects, these
territorial markers existed at the nexus of the struggles over cultural meanings and the
future of this local area. They created a social and political identity for the growing
population of educated, middle class professionals establishing residences in this area and
marked the territory as historic property of the Black community. Territorial markers
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 16
codified knowledge about the area called “Bronzeville” within the larger metropolitan
context of Chicago. Among these territorial efforts were: identification, landmarking and
mapping of historic sites such as the homes of author Richard Wright, author and activist
Ida B. Well and musician Muddy Watters; landmarking, preservation and restoration of
the Bronzeville Military Academy, as well as eight business buildings constructed by
Black entrepreneurs from 1920-1945; the restoration and preservation of historic public
murals done by Black activists between 1970 and 2000; the construction of a series of
bronze artworks including “The Monument to the Great Northern Migration,” a bronze
map naming the area “Bronzeville,” a series of artistic park benches and 91 bronze
plaques comprising the “Bronzeville Walk of Fame” of historic “he-ros and she-ros of the
community”; and the construction of three new art facilities on 47th Street. These
territorial projects placed “Blackness” into public discourse in form of permanent public
art objects. While the territorial circuits had an eye on owning Bronzeville, the collecting
circuit focused more generally on owning African-American culture as represented by
predominantly local African American artists.
Pilsen Circuits
In Pilsen, the primary resource was a concentration of art activity around an array
of public displays including open studio days, exhibitions, murals, processions, parades,
and cooperative opening nights for home/studio-based galleries. This concentration of
activity created visibility for a range of arts activities along Halsted Streets and 18th
Streets. While there was fairly rapid turnover among local circuit participants, the
visibility and concentration of activity meant that vacant positions were quickly filled.
Within this concentration of activity, there were three different types of circuits. In east
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 17
Pilsen activities focused on the autonomy of the artist; arts activities in central Pilsen
focused on community-based art service activities for local children and families; and arts
activities in west Pilsen focused on local sovereignty of Mexican-American ethnic
culture. Each circuit of production represented a different facet of the local struggle for
control over the future of the area, although the art production circuits shared some of the
same participants. Struggles over ethnicity, local sovereignty and artistic autonomy
distinguished the three art production circuits in Pilsen. However, these distinct groups
were united when outside forces threatened local space.
In East Pilsen, the primary resource was more than a hundred rental properties
owned by a single family of Czech descent, the Podmajerskis. The concentration of
artists and artists’ spaces created an Artistic Autonomy Circuit; i.e. a community of artists
who valued the artistic autonomy afforded through these types of spaces over traditional
institutional or art market relationships.
The exchanges among circuit participants were
agreements to act cooperatively, particularly in scheduling opening nights together,
marketing galleries and participating in group exhibitions. By sharing audiences through
cooperative openings and maintaining communication through email, artists in east Pilsen
maintained loose social connections designed to share access to potentially careeradvancing opportunities. Among the participants in this circuit was the landlord family.
This family descended of the first wave of eastern European immigrants that settled
Pilsen in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Since the 1960s’, they have
been purchasing, designing, rehabbing and marketing rental properties to the needs and
interests of highly educated, predominantly White, art school graduates who valued
artistic autonomy provided in such spaces. Artists rented studios or artist spaces in which
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 18
they lived and produced work. They often presented works to their friends and to the
public from their living rooms or in gallery spaces in place of living rooms. The spaces
range from loft buildings, storefronts and wood frame 2 or 3 flats that have been
architecturally altered to create open spaces out of numerous small rooms that once
housed large immigrant families. An annual open studio event organized by Podmajerski
and Associates involved 50-100 artists and was designed to attract art buyers from
outside of Pilsen. In addition, a circuit of artists hosted monthly exhibition openings on
second Fridays. Artists renting spaces here reported selling works on occasion, but their
major source of income was through employment and freelance jobs in “Loop” locations
working in arts administration, graphic design, web design, exhibition preparation, and
construction. Exhibitions were mounted in artists “domestic spaces” which included, in
2002, Apt 1R, Unit B, Bucket Rider, Drive-Thru Studios, Gallery 645 and Dogmatic
Gallery. These exhibitions crossed the public/private boundary in that they were
publicly announced but existed in private domains. While artists reported selling works,
a circuit of collectors did not live in Pilsen nor supported social life as was the case in
Bronzeville. Buyers were typically not Pilsen residents, but came to openings and events
from outside of Pilsen. Exhibition organizers maintained mailing lists of exhibition
attendees and art buyers and distributed monthly announcements to events via email and
by postcard.
In central Pilsen, the primary resource was access to a range of short-term
contract positions through several nonprofit arts organizations, social service agencies
and public agencies. Artists from various ethnic backgrounds intermingled to fill
temporary positions in a Youth Services Circuit. Among the participants were artists
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 19
living both within and outside of Pilsen, local families, arts administrators and workers
from social services, public parks and other public agencies. Contract positions were
funded through grants given to several nonprofit arts and social service agencies,
neighborhood development corporations, local schools and parks for arts programming.
Women filled paid arts administration positions. They worked in nonprofit arts and social
service agencies to raise the money needed for such local arts activities. They maintained
cohesiveness in an open circuit of paid collaborators by acting as intermediaries in
conflicts that might arise and recruiting new participants who “bought into” the
community-based emphasis. Recruitment occurred through local referrals or at events
sponsored by the organizations.
In West Pilsen, the primary resource was access to permanent or higher status
positions with a major cultural institution, the Mexican Fine Arts Museum Center,
dedicated to Mexican cultural history and fine art. The museum provided cultural
programming to the Mexican American community that surrounded the museum and
displayed Mexican and Mexican-American artists’ works as part of its educational
displays. It also provided permanent and contract employment to Mexican-American
artists through its main Museum facility, its satellite youth museum, radio station and
various festival and school-based programs. The Museum regularly attracted high profile
figures like Mexican President Vicente Fox and featured the work of Frida Kahlo and
Diego Rivera in 2003. Its exhibitions and performances often attracted audiences of
50,000 or more over the course of several months. Its exhibitions regularly “cross over”
ethnic and racial categories to attract Black, White and Hispanic audiences. The
museum was criticized for not doing more for the substantial community of independent
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 20
Mexican artists living in Pilsen. While there were several commercial galleries in River
North and two Pilsen-based collectives, Colibri, and Polvo involving Mexican American
and other artists of Hispanic descent, local Mexican American muralists, printmakers and
photographers through out Pilsen, lacked the type of non-profit and small business
organizational support found in Rogers Park, the organizational and technical support
found in east Pilsen and social support found in Bronzeville.
Rogers Park Circuits
In Rogers Park, the primary resource was an activist community that involved
residents, small for-profit businesses, a community development corporation, and several
nonprofit or for profit arts organizations creating a dense and interconnecting Problem
Solving Circuit intent on community building in this diverse locality. The exchanges in
this circuit were among community volunteers who donated their time, energy and
money to organize and attend the free festivals, as well as collaboratively promote events,
and engage youth in art activities for the purpose of building community. As the
dominant leaders in Rogers Park were small business and residential property owners,
they supported arts activities having clearly defined community-level outcomes. These
leaders hosted regular networking breakfasts and evening gatherings sponsored under the
auspices of “Arts and Business Network.” Art activities sponsored within this circuit
existed to solve problems encountered by local residents and small businesses. Among
these, graffiti on the retaining wall was solved through an annual community mural
painting festival; customers from outside the area were attracted to area restaurants and
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 21
cafés through collaborative music festivals, regular poetry events and art exhibitions; a
vacant building on a crime corner (that included a murder in 2001, drug dealing and
prostitution) was rehabbed into artist studios to attract “artists-in-residence” who were
viewed as more desirable tenants and customers; and the harassment of both the Arab and
South Asian community members after 9/11was addressed by a neighborhood march and
forum featuring poetry and performances by South Asian and other artists.
Structural Detail of a Collecting Circuit in Bronzeville
In this section, I show in detail the structure of a Collecting Circuit in Bronzeville.
The type of detail presented here shows how the circuit operates similar to the network
structures outlined by network analysts. As already discussed, network analysts show
how connections in instrumental networks exist through repeated and enduring
relationships among the participants. Without organizational authority or market
competition as central to network activities (Podolny and Page 1998) the governing
principals within these relationships might involve trust (Powell 1990, Schuler 1996);
they might involve reciprocity, that is the give and take involved in an exchange (Powell
1990, Putnam 2000); or they might involve mutual benefits (Burnes and Stalker 1961,
Putnam 2000).
In Bronzeville, Collecting Circuits existed through repeated and enduring
exchanges between Black artists who made relatively small, portable objects and
collectors who purchased works for display in private local residences. There was
cohesive interest among circuit participants in nurturing a social environment in which art
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 22
objects could be created by Black artists and owned by Black collectors. Art collecting
was a social activity comprised of interpersonal exchanges taking place through artists’
home-based studios and through parties in collectors’ homes. Artists were both men and
women from 20 – 70 years, many of whom have college degrees in art, art education or
graphic design, or who have BFAs or MFAs from an arts institute. Collectors were Black
men and women, middle-aged, middle class professionals, many of whom worked for
various federal, state or local government agencies, local colleges or were administrators
or teachers within the Chicago Public School system.
Collectors were buyers of art who had assembled hundreds of art objects for
display in their homes (See Appendix B, Figure 1: Sitting area off of Patric’s living
room). Collectors experienced an intimate social exchange of respect and appreciation
with artists and with other collectors. For Patrick, the role of the collector was like being
an artist; just as artists received satisfaction from the attention they received when
showing their work, so does the collector. With a collection containing hundreds of
pieces, Patric had an identity in his community that attracted people interested in art to
him and to his home. Visitors to his home often exchanged mutual respect and
admiration of particular pieces in his collection. This amounted to satisfying
interpersonal interaction for Patric. The night I went to Patric’s house, several people
showed up including: Dan, a collector, Dale, an artist and Todd, another friend. When I
arrived at Patric’s home, he encouraged me to walk freely through his home and look at
the art that filled nearly every square inch of wall and table surface. At first, Patric and
others informally accompanied me. Our discussion was structured by where we walked.
As we walked through various rooms, Patric talked about pieces I pointed out or I asked
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 23
specific questions about. Some times the others at the party looked on and participated,
other times, they broke into their own groups. That night, there was a lot of energy.
The interaction fit Simmel’s analysis of sociable conversation in which “the telling and
reception of stories, etc., is not an end in itself but only a means for the liveliness,
harmony, and common consciousness of the ‘party’” (Simmel 1950:53). The interaction
at this party hosted by a collector, was one in which the participants were viewed as
equals and experienced an intimate give and take, i.e. what Simmel calls “two-way-ness”
(Simmel 1950:53) or what Putnam calls “reciprocity” (Putnam 2000:20) through
discussion about art at the party. Participants shared stories and observations about art,
and accounts of the kind of sensory and intellectual experience that characterized
aesthetic pleasure. According to Patric:
I see this thing as interaction with other people. It’s very similar to an
artist showing work. Artists get the joy out of the creation. I get the joy out
of recognizing that my eye that saw something in the piece, that I enjoyed
it and had a meaning and affect on me. When people are at my house
looking at artwork, I like to watch how they react to different pieces. I
like to talk with them about the art. When I see it had the same affect; that
they are attracted to one over another it reinforces what I saw and the
feelings I had about it when I bought it. It is really, it’s very satisfying.
It’s very satisfying. It makes me look at the pieces again and again. You
see things that you didn’t see before. It will be something new. So it opens
up new ideas and experiences.
Patric addressed the uncertainty involved in aesthetic preferences through creating
opportunities for interaction among people he had invited to his home. The activity of
observing, discussing and being observed at such parties produced knowledge about
aesthetic preferences.
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 24
Dan, described as a central figure in the collecting circuit (See Appendix B, Figure
2: View of one room of Dan’s collection), regularly hosted private parties and informal
diners where art and artists were the topic of discussion. These parties functioned to
recruit people to be collectors of art works by African American artists. According to
Dan:
Before I moved, I had a party. I invited all the artists that I collected to
come and art entrepreneurs and people who had a sincere interest in the
art. And I had a party so that that level of people could interact. I had
other parties and talked about the art as I am talking to you. It was an
opportunity to kind of interact. Artists with each other, artists with art
entrepreneurs as well as people who had a real interest in collecting art but
maybe had only collected one or two pieces. So you try to use your venue
as a place of motivation and inspiration. Hopefully, if someone comes
here and sees all this art, and they have a Robert Johnson to talk about the
art and what it is like to do the art, and see something like this and he talks
about how he did it why he did it. It is inspiration, motivation, to purchase
the art. When they see it here, they say, wow that’s really cool, I would
really like to have something like that in my home.
These parties introduced potential collectors to a social circuit and the shared
concerns that created bonds among participants. The venue for the party was not always
at a collector’s home. Artists also held parties. Dayo, a Nigerian artist living in Hyde
Park held regular “open studio” events to sell work and collectors to socialize. From
Dayo’s perspective, people in the Black community can afford to buy art, but there was
not a tradition of doing so. “It’s a Black thing. Blacks with money are more likely to
spend it on cars or electronics rather than art,” he said. He sees the education of potential
collectors along with regular opportunities to socialize as central to his survival as an
artist. At his studio events, he encouraged talk among collectors and artists on what it
meant to be a collector of the works by Black artists.
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 25
Most every collector I have, they have become friends [with each other]… When
someone buys one of my paintings, I say ‘thank you’ and I give them a certificate of
authenticity. I make them interact with other collectors of my work. They have a club.
They share their collections with each other. That’s a kind of camaraderie I’m creating
[through my work].
Both Dan and Patric are members of “Dayo’s club” as each owns several of his
pieces and identified others who also were members of the club. Among them, were two
women who were school principals.
Joan, the principal at Dixon Elementary School purchased an extensive collection
of art, which was displayed in this Chicago Public School. Together with the art teacher,
she had purchased pieces over the years through the proceeds of an annual art fair.
Dayo’s piece celebrated the leadership of women and was mounted at the school
entrance right outside the principal’s office (See Appendix B, Figure 3: Joan with “Ye Ye
Oba” painting by Dayo.) Joan explained how the piece reflected both women’s roles in
African American society and in the school:
Ye Ye Oba, this is Queen Mother. What Dayo was saying [was] that in
African tradition, the mother is the strength of the village. It’s the mother
who raises up the child, the son, to eventually be the king. So that’s what
this represents. This was Queen Mother. You know. It wasn’t King Father
who was in charge, who was in charge of molding the next prince or king,
it was the mother. That’s kinda like what the school represents. We view
ourselves, particularly since 99% of us are females, that we are that yard
stick, that strength that molds these children to be whatever they’re gonna
be later on.
At first it was a surprising that circuit connections lead me to a school, first to
interview a school teacher, then a principal, then to find that they too had built a
substantial collection of art that not only created an aura of creativity and identity within
the school, but also these works were presented as tools of education. “Every piece on
display communicates some value that we feel is important that we are trying to teach our
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 26
children. If we don’t do it who will? You certainly aren’t going to learn anything from
all the billboards selling alcohol in our community,” explained Joan. These ideas were
echoed by Annette, an artist and art teacher at a Dixon Elementary School. She said, the
artistic environment is conducive to creativity:
It’s a really positive energy that makes you wanta just create. You know. And
whenever I go out and I’m with a show or with some of my fellow artists I can go
back and really create something. Just like being at Patric’s house being exposed
to all his art. It rejuvenates, it energizes me…And just being around them helps
to, to, vibe off of them, so to speak. Just being around that kind of person that
likes to create this positive– being around that kind of energy just helps, helps me
create. I think that’s [why] I like to sit around with my students, trying to get them
to use that muscle, that creative muscle. Its like so wonderful, its just a high that I
can’t figure out how to describe it.
Annette had been at Patric’s just a few weeks before I interviewed her. She explained
that she had never been to his place but he had invited her often. That evening, she went
with a friend who had just finished designing his shower curtains and chair covers. While
she was there, she also met Bryant, the owner of the new gallery Steele Life, located on
47th and King Drive.
[I went with] a friend of mine…She’s a, Sylvia –––. She’s a fine artist
who she does textiles. She did his shower curtains and I think he did his
couch covers… So, uh, she happened, uh, he had asked me several times
to come on over, but I’d never gotten anybody to go with me as an entré. I
didn’t want to just drop by, you know. So she said, “well come on” and
she called him and said “I’m going to bring Melika with me” and he said
“OK”. And I finally get to go over there. So that’s how that happened. So
when I went there, the gallery owner and I guess his wife was there.
Annette’s experience showed how a circuit of private connections is built through a
central figure like Patric, who not only purchases artwork but his home also is a central
meeting place for artists, collectors and even gallery owners.
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 27
The bonding experienced through this circuit of arts producers centered on
building an understanding of Black history and identity that had at its core resistance to
external cultural domination. Most of Patric’s collection was contemporary work made
by local artists from the 1980s to the present. He focused on artists who interpret “this
moment” in contemporary life. Few of the pieces he purchased are literal representations
of local life, rather they represent the thought of what art should be and could be in his
environment in these times. This includes works that are Black Power movement pieces,
abstracts, landscapes, portraits, afro-centric designs and art that is a direct reflection of
contemporary events, as illustrated through his description of two collages by Kevin Lee:
This artist did one show at the South Side Community Art Center with these
collages then kind of disappeared off the scene. They are very, very interesting
collages. They tell the stories of the present culture. This is of Mike Tyson
showing him being handcuffed by the dollar, Desiree running for the money,
Justice with her boxing glove on saying effectively saying she knocked him out,
and Robin wearing the [boxing championship] belt. And then here’s his image
wrapped up in the flag. I think it is a wonderful encapsulation of the moment. [In
the other one] here is OJ and the Bronco, the knife, the bloody glove, Nicole,
Judge Ito. The image of OJ, the hero, bursting out like he did on the Hertz ad, is
splitting. One image is replacing another. Again, the man [artist Lee] is a genius.
We haven’t seen him since that first show.
Patric stops short of framing the plight of these two fallen Black men as their own
fault, the fault of the women in their lives or the fault of the larger culture. Instead, he,
like the artist, leaves the final interpretation up to the viewer and simply ends his story by
stating that the artist is “a genius.” With an absence of formal critics writing and
critiquing artists works in Bronzeville, it is through such discussion at private parties that
artists’ reputations are made. In each of Patric’s accounts, he told stories about unusual
situations in which he bought a piece, such as one from at the Bud Bilakin Parade or
another by a “guy who said he was just out of prison,” or why he hung it where he did, or
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 28
what the piece meant to him. He guided conversation only to the point where others had
something to say. Then he stopped talking until the conversation ebbed. Of his place in
the circuit, he said:
I’ve been collecting for 20 years. I like to interact with living artists,
mainly someone who is living and breathing in my local community. I
learned about collecting from people who have amassed collections that
have become important, such as Vivian Hewitt. When you have pieces
from people who are signing pieces to the people who buy it, you end up
with a collection of work that truly reflects a time period without all that
hoopla of the famous artists. It really grabs what people were doing at that
time. When it comes to looking at the end of the 20th century, I have a
piece of that. [Because] artists tend to know each other and interact with
each other, without [having] a clear statement of a movement we become
a movement.
Patric sees his collecting activity as part of a “movement.” It is about creating a culture
that reflects Bronzeville in the late 20th century. The social connections created through
the practice of art collecting help to generate thinking about the connection of such
objects to everyday life. Such objectification of life becomes a focal point, according to
Dan, to understand one’s place in the larger world order. His reasoning showed how art
expressed both particular experiences of Black people in the United States and universal
experiences. He pointed to the “particular” experiences of Black people in the U.S.
through two works on “Black Face” by Julian Williams (See Appendix B, Figure 4:
“Black Face” paintings by Julian Williams in Dan’s collection).
There seems to be two schools of thought in terms of African American
art or Black art. One is that art is directly related to the Black experience
or [the second] that it is exterior to the black experience and perhaps more
universal in its presentation. This particular piece is very germane to the
Black experience. In the larger piece [which references the practice of
“Black face”] you see the lips are exaggerated. [It] mimics Black people
who are mimicking White people who are mimicking Black people. [both
laugh] Ok. And so that really is what it is. That shows a Black man, as you
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 29
see, with Blue eyes. And if you look at all of his tags from various places
he has traveled, he has only traveled to European places. And so he only
sees the world from European eyes at the expense of his own Blackness
and who he is. That’s that piece.
While this piece expressed the experience of racism and inequality, other pieces
celebrate the positive aspects of the Black experience. He pointed to a piece by Dayo, of
a Nigerian marriage dance, to illustrate cultural rituals and relationships.
The interdependent relationship between artists and collectors was evident in all
my interactions within this circuit. Exchanges between collector and artist amounted to
more than an exchange of money for art. They were not isolated or objective sales.
There is an intimate exchange of appreciation. This was expressed by Dale at Patric’s
party. “What they do is very special. We are like family. They come to my house and
have holidays with my family. We share troubles and successes.” Dale, as well as other
artists interviewed, reported selling numerous pieces to the same collectors over time,
maintaining close personal relationships with collectors of their work, and counting on
their referrals to other collectors. In this tight-knit social circuit, artists recognized that
art production was about creating objects that were meaningful to people they knew or
encountered in their everyday life, i.e. their community. In exchange, artists expected
local residents to purchase their work. Collectors recognized both the importance of their
monetary support to the artist’s work and their role in ownership and care-taking of art
objects that were created through their interest and support. As the collectors I met were
middle class professionals, most of whom worked for various government agencies or
were small business entrepreneurs, they paid $100-$3000 for art works. This price range
meant that individual artists were surviving and continuing to make art, but that their
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 30
household was usually supported by a second income earned by the artist or by others in
the household.
The private realm within which exchanges occurred in Bronzeville meant that
artists had to be directly involved in sales of their own works and in creation of their own
careers. Dale has created a place for himself through maintaining connections with
collectors and artists within his community. He hears of opportunities by word-of-mouth.
As a form of advice to other artists, he said, “Hear about a reception, Be there. You
know somebody there will always know you and they’ll refer you to somebody else.
[Then] you go and charm ‘em to death. You know.” Through such informal meetings,
Dale makes contacts with potential buyers. He transforms his contacts with potential
buyers into relationships with buyers, then transforms these into enduring relationships
with collectors. He does this by maintaining and feeding these contacts:
A lot of artists had never thought about keeping, even sending a buyer or
collector of their work a thank you card, up until I started mentioning
these things. I call them common sense points. [In advise to other artists I
say] Send em a thank you card. Someone is interested in your work get
their information. You know if they didn’t purchase it, [call or send a note
saying] “I still have this piece if you’re still interested.” You know, doing
things like that. Um. [Send a note saying] “Thinking of you. Haven’t
heard from you in six months. Hope everything is fine.” People like to
know you really care and you are sincere about what you’re doing. And
it’s really appreciated that they have your work. You know when Patrick
first purchased a piece, I [just] met him at an art show. [This was] 8-9
years ago. He came to my house for four hours while I cooked him dinner.
Then, I sent him a thank you card. A hand made [card which, was
basically] another small piece. But it was an original piece of artwork.
Loved it! You know, its just having a little bit of class… [laughs] and I
found out a lot of my artists friends didn’t.
According to Dale, maintaining connections with buyers and collectors is not only
common sense but also it amounts to “having class.” The assertive role artists played in
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 31
the selling of their work and in the creation of their own careers was how things got done
in this art production circuit. Dayo was one of the most collected artists on Chicago’s
south side. Part of the reason was the visibility he generated around his own work. He
produced a lot of work, had regular open studio events, showed his work at restaurants,
galleries, schools, and private events. He lived off sales and has sold upwards of 300
pieces. “The artist is the person who has to sell their work. Even when you have a
gallery or agent, we are the ones who have to make a sale. Until your name is a
household name like Picasso, then you don’t have to show up. But until then we make the
sale.” At a show at the South Side Communty Art Center, where I first saw Dayo’s work,
he sold 23 pieces. I asked him how he did it:
I always like to see 1 or 2 dots [on the label indicated “sold”] before I get
to work because I know I will work that crowd… 90% of the sales happen
opening night…you’re lucky if you make 10-20% after opening night. [I
have learned] in my 10 years of smooching and necking the collectors, the
way you socialize will enhance your sales that opening night in most
cases. With each person, you talk, you smooch, photograph, autograph,
then you move on to the next person. It is both the muscle of the work and
the crowd that creates the excitement on opening night. You feel hyped.
Once the first person buys, once he buys it he wants to flaunt it. Once you
see red dots flying, it is quite contagious.
The enthusiasm of the night generated an environment that transformed
disinterested observers into passionate buyers. The steps up to the opening night that
culminated in Dayo’s interaction with people at the opening were necessary to transform
opening night attendees into collectors of Daye’s work, or as Dayo referred to them “my
collectors.” While Dayo had sold many pieces and is well known in Bronzeville, the
market that exists for his work remains intimately connected to him like the bonds among
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 32
the participants in the collecting circuit. They revolved around meanings generated and
exchanged through these interpersonal interactions.
While the structure of interpersonal exchanges involved with art sales in
Bronzeville produced satisfying social relationships and a local art market, artists
complained that there was no upscale vehicle to increase the value their work. There
were few of the structures in place to generate greater demand for their work, such as
networks of permanently established exhibition venues, professional administrators
working in both nonprofit and business environments and published information about
artists or arts activities. Therefore there were limited links to art markets outside this
locality.
By providing monetary support to local artists and through building social life
around locally-made cultural objects, participants in the collecting circuit became part of
the restoration of Bronzeville’s cultural and economic life. These social relationships
provided the middle class returning to Bronzeville with a sense of interpersonal
connection to the contemporary and historic life in Bronzeville. Their presence in
Bronzeville was central to rebuilding the local economy and was indirectly “stimulated”
by the infusion of public funds into revitalizing this area.
The Collecting Circuit in Bronzeville was not replicated in Pilsen or Rogers Park.
As already discussed, circuit participants in east Pilsen reported making occasional sales
to buyers living outside of Pilsen. There was not the interaction or mutual concern shared
between artists in collectors as in Bronzeville. In fact, one exhibition organizer
highlighted that he was not interested in sales because it would require him to “baby sit”
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 33
collectors. Rather he liked to focus setting up social situations around art and watching
people interact and respond, not unlike the collector’s parties in Bronzeville. In Rogers
Park, artists reported sales through occasional festivals and shows, but again, buyers were
not part of a collecting network sharing mutual concerns, nor were connections between
artists and collectors maintained. These accounts are detailed more fully in a larger work.
Conclusions
Through this study of networks and resource mobilization in three localities I
abandoned traditional occupational categories to understand how art was produced in
local communities. I found, nonetheless, networks operating within local communities
much like those constructed within the institutional and occupational categories. In
Bronzeville, I found artists, collectors, teachers and administrators involved in art
production circuits, however, work occurred in nontraditional sites. The interpersonal
interaction in collecting circuits produced a thriving local art market. This contrasted
with the relationships of powerful people with strategic access to external public
resources at work territorial circuits producing territorial markers and the agreements to
act collectively that were seen in the autonomy circuits in east Pilsen.
This study showed how professionals and local residents involved in art
production accessed resources through social circuits to create markers of the racial,
ethnic and class dimensions of their communities. The qualitative data gleaned from
interviews showed significantly more arts activity within the area and significantly
greater expansion beyond the borders of the local community than is evident through
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 34
public listings. By tracing art production circuits through connections of participants in
three distinct urban communities, I saw how mutual concerns for the locality brought
circuit participants together and sustained art production activity.
Collecting and territorial circuits in Bronzeville are distinguished from those in
Pilsen and Rogers Park in part because of a new class of urban Black professionals were
establishing new residences in a community whose meaning centered around the cultural
experiences of African Americans. These circuits become exemplary cases showing how
art producers mobilized local cultural capital in innovative ways to both stake a claim to
local territory and attract external resources to the local economic structure. Art
production circuits produced knowledge embedded in art that identified the locality and
collective concerns of the community.
These localities shared a common orientation in their resistance to externally
imposed meanings and practices rather than reproducing historic inequalities by
misrecognizing a dominant culture as the legitimate culture of the community (Bourdieu
[1977]1990). Participants produced symbolic meanings that contested historic
subordinate statuses while asserting a local identity.
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 35
Appendix A
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 36
Table 1: Community Composition by Race
Community Composition by Race - 2000 Census
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Bronzeville
Black (non-Hisp.)
Pilsen
White (non-Hisp.)
Rogers Park
Hispanic
Asian/ Pac. Is.
Chicago
Other Races
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 37
Table 2: Comparison of Income Range by Community
Comparison of Income Range by Community - 2000 Census
40%
35%
34%
32%
31%
30%
25%
Percent
21%
20%
19%
19%
17%
16%
15%
16%
14%14%
13%
12%
12%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
4%
2%
1% 1%
0%
< $10,000
$10,000 - $19,999
Bronzeville
$20,000 - $39,999
$40,000 - $59,999
Pilsen
$60,000 - $99,999
$100,000 $199,999
$200,000 >
Rogers Park
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 38
Table 3: Comparison of Ongoing Arts Programming to Public Art
Comparison of Ongoing Arts Production to Public Art
Bronzeville
Pilsen
Sites for Ongoing Arts Activity
Rogers Park
Sites of Murals or Public Art
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 39
Table 4: Comparison of For Profit, Non-Profit, Informal, Public Parks and University Sites
Comparison of For Profit, Non-Profit, Informal, Public Park, and University
Sites
14
12
12
10
10
10
Number
8
7
7
6
4
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
Bronzeville
For Profit
Pilsen
Non Profit
Informal
Rogers Park
Public Park
University
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 40
Table 1: Typology of Local Art Production Circuits
Types of Local Art
Production Circuit
Territorial
Purpose
Types of Participants
Activities
Funding Source
Communication
To mark and identify
local territory
Local citizens, other
political actors, and
artists
Public funds
Public meetings,
Official documents,
news reports
Collecting
Cultivate values and
meanings about
cultural objects
Collectors, artists,
performers, audience
members
Produce physical
structures that identify
and stake a group’s
claim to a local place
including territorial
markers, historic
structures and
monuments.
Assemble and present
cultural objects for
temporary displays
Personal funds of
middle and upper class
art buyers
Interpersonal
Autonomy
To increase access to
artistic opportunities
Cutting edge artists, and
small business owners
Produce objects or
events with artistic
value
Personal funds of
entrepreneurs
Gentrification
To increase value of
local property values
and resources in local
economy
City bureaucrats, real
estate developers and
agents, business owners
property owners, artists
External Investments
Problem-solving
To solve a local issue
or problem
Community volunteers
Build spaces and
facilities for private,
commercial, or public
use by desired
investors.
One time activities or
products
Publicity via internet or
email list-serves,
direct mail, newspaper
listings and stories
Public meetings,
official documents,
news reports
Youth Services
To involve adults and
youth in educational
activities
Administrators,
instructors, families,
parents and students
Regular activities in
school, after school on
holidays or on summer
break.
- Public Funds
- Personal funds of
middle class parents
Donations
Interpersonal,
pc networks, social
events
Interpersonal,
interagency
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 41
Appendix B
Because of the size of the files for maps and pictures, they are contained in a separate
document file. Please download Producing Local Color, Appendix B, from the website.
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 42
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Chicago, IL: Free Press.
—1982. Art Worlds. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron. ([1977] 1990) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture.
Second Edition. Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications.
Burns, Tom and G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London, UK: Tavistock.
Campbell, Wendell. 1993. “Mid-South Strategic Development Plan: Restoring Bronzeville.” Report
prepared by Wendell Campbell Associates, Inc and Applied Real Estate Analysis for the City of
Chicago Department of Planning and Development and the Mid-South Planning Group. Funded
by the Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation.
Cantor, Muriel G. and Cheryl L. Zollars. Eds. 1993. Creators of Culture: Occupations and Professions in
Culture Industries. From the series Current Research on Occupations and Professions, Volume 8,
1993 edited by Helena Z. Lopata. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
City of Chicago. 1998. “Empowerment Zone FAQ”
http://www.ci.chi.il.us/PlanAndDevelop/Programs/EmpowermentZone/EmpZoneFAQ.html.
Printed, June 14, 2003.
DiMaggio, Paul. [1982] 1991. “Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston: The Creation of
an Organizational Base for High Culture in America.” Pp 374-397 in Rethinking Popular Culture:
Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies, edited by Chandra Mukerji and Michael
Schudson. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Drake, St. Clair and Horace R. Cayton. [1945] 1962. Black Metropolis: A Study of Negro Life in a Northern
City. New York: Harper Row.
DuSable Museum of African American History, 2000. Financial Statements. www.guidestar.com
12/27/2002.
Gilmore, Samuel.1990.”Artworlds: Developing the Interactionist Approach to Social Organization.” Pp
148-178 in Symbolic Interaction and Culture Studies. Edited by Howard S. Becker and Michal M.
McCall. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
–– 1993. “Search and Attraction in an artistic Social matching Process.” Pp 277-298 in Creators of
Culture: Occupations and Professions in Culture Industries, From the series Current Research on
Occupations and Professions, Volume 8 1993. edited by Helena Z. Lopata. Greenwich, CT: Jai
Press.
Giuffre, Katherine. 1999. “Sand Piles of Opportunity: Success in the Art World.” Social Forces. 77(3):
815-32.
Granovetter, Mark. [1973] 1982. “The Strength of Weak Ties,” pp 105-130 in Social Structure and
Network Analysis, edited by Peter V. Marsden and Nan Lin. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
–– 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American
Journal of Sociology 91:481-510.
Guichard, Andre. “Guichard Gallery.” March 3, 2003. http://www.art-websites.com.
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 52
Illinois Institute of Technology. 1999. “IITs Community Development Department.”
http://www.iit.edu/~iitcomdev/introduction/intro.html. June 14, 2003.
Jackson, Maria-Rosario. 1998. “Arts and Culture Indicators In Community Building Project: January 1996
– May 1998.” A Report to the Rockefeller Foundation. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.
Kopacz, Chris. 2001. “WLUW May Lose University Funding.” Article in The Phoenix, A publication of
Loyola University Chicago. (Nov 14, 2001).
Kretzmann, John and John L. McKnight. 1993. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward
Finding and Mobilizing A Community’s Assets. Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications.
Logan, J. R. and H. L. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Space. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Mowatt, Raoul V. 2000. “House of Blues on Way Back: Artists and Activists Work to Restore Pride in the
Kenwood Home Where Muddy Waters Lived.” August 31, 2000. Chicago, IL: Chicago Tribune.
Park, Robert. 1936. “Human Ecology,” American Journal of Sociology 17 (1), 1-15.
Peterson, Richard A. ed. 1976. The Production of Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peterson, Richard A. and Howard G. White. 1979. “The Simplex Located in Art Worlds.” Urban Life
(January 1979): 7 (4) 411-439.
Peterson, Richard A. 1982. Five Constraints on the Production of Culture: Law, Technology, Markes,
Organizational Structure and Occupational Careers. Journal of Popular Culture 16 (2) 143-153.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salancik, 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Podolny, Joel, M. and Karen L. Page. 1998. “The Network Forms of Organization,” Annual Review of
Sociology. 24:57-76.
Powell, William W. 1990. “Neither Market or Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization,” in Research in
Organizational Behavior, edited by B Staw and L.L. Cummings, 12: 295-336. Greenwich, CT
JAI.
Putman, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Schuler, Douglas. 1996. New Community Networks: Wired for Change. New York: ACM Press.
Simmel, G. [1936] 1950. “The Metropolis in Mental Life,” in The Sociology of Georg Simmel translated
and edited by K.H. Wolff, , New York: Free Press.
Stack, Carol. 1974. All Our Kin. New York: Harper & Row.
Thornton, Sarah. (1995) 1996. Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Handover, NH:
Westleyan University Press and UK: Polity Press.
Tonnies, F. [1887] 1957. Community and Society, translated and edited by C. P. Loomis. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University Press.
Webber, Melvin. 1963.”Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity,” in Cities and Space: The
Future Use of Urban Land edited by L. Wingo. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wellman, B. 1979. “The Community Question: The Intimate Network of East Yorkers,” American Journal
of Sociology 84 (March), 1201-1231.
Grams: Producing Local Color, Page 53